- From: <ben.pawson@virgin.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 08:29:10 +0000
- To: WAI HC Working Group <w3c-wai-hc@w3.org>
Jason White wrote: [snip] > > I would envisage the priority scheme as follows: > > User Required > Author Important > User Important > Author Required Author Normal > User Normal > > This retains existing priorities, but adds "user required" at the top of > the hierarchy, as well as changing the specificity rules. > > I would favour a key word such as "!required" rather than > "!accessibility". Could I support HL position, accessible / accessibility rather than user required. Simply on grounds of first interpretation. The reason for the highest priority is then clear - as Jason stated in a post a few days ago; 'I need it for .....'. [It always puzzled me why it wasn't there in the first place!] regards, DaveP
Received on Monday, 22 December 1997 03:36:41 UTC